Prosecutors Hold Off Final Hunter Biden Case Decision Amid Talks With Defense Lawyers

[question everything]

Prosecutors are holding off on a final decision on whether to bring a case against President Biden’s son, Hunter, while they review defense evidence in the long-running investigation, people familiar with the matter said. Investigators for months have believed there is enough evidence to charge the younger Mr. Biden with tax crimes and a false statement related to a gun he purchased, and had expected a case to be brought by the end of the summer, the people said.

Prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware, which has been leading the investigation, are struggling with whether certain facts, such as his well-documented drug addiction, would present a defense against a potential criminal tax case, the people said. Mr. Biden’s defense team met with Justice Department prosecutors in recent weeks, trying to counter the government’s potential case, some of the people said. The decision of whether to bring any charges would be up to prosecutors, who must assess whether they think that evidence is strong enough to win a conviction at trial.

(snip)

In December 2020, soon after his father won the presidency, Hunter Biden said his tax matters were under investigation, a probe that began in 2018, adding he was “confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately.”

Since then, prosecutors have called several of Mr. Biden’s associates and other witnesses to testify before the grand jury as part of a wide-ranging investigation into the president’s son’s business dealings. They have been examining whether he violated tax or other laws, including those governing lobbying for foreign governments, through his business relationships in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere, some of the people said.

(snip)

As the investigation continued, Mr. Biden paid around $1 million that he had owed in back taxes, the Journal previously reported. It isn’t known if that represents his entire tax liability. The Washington Post earlier Thursday reported that agents believed they had enough evidence to charge the younger Mr. Biden.

More..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-biden-case-decision-paused-amid-discussions-between-defense-lawyers-and-prosecutors-11665094544 (subscription)


(I don't know how to find a link that bypass the firewall)

[spanone]

1. Benghazi revisited

[Demsrule86]

2. Since when is WSJ acceptable as a source?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. Since when isn't it?

This isn’t their opinion page, it’s a news story.

[uponit7771]

7. When the non editorial pages parrot MAGA extremist talking points? tia

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. It was somewhat respected, before Murdoch bought it

I used to subscribe. Its editorial page was conservative but it generally good business and investment news.

Murdoch turned it into a print version of Fux Noise.

[Poiuyt]

4. My thought is that the DoJ is offering up Hunter as a sacrificial lamb to make

indicting Trump more palatable.

Yes, I know it's not fair, but I still think the DoJ is afraid to indict Trump. This would give them a way of going after Trump without looking partisan.

[question everything]

5. It is good that prosecutors are negotiating with his defense lawyers.

Will be nice if it will conclude before January if, worse comes to worse, the Rs take control.

[uponit7771]

6. "some of the people said" 🙄🙄🙄

[spanone]

8. Yep, that sounds like reliable sources.

[mackdaddy]

9. I think that a Four YEAR multi-agency investigation into Anyone would find something.

Much less anyone who does international business.

What do you think they would find with a Four year investigation into Jarred and Ivanke?

[edhopper]

10. But they can't indict Trump,

funny that.

[PRETZEL]

11. Couple of opinions, just from the OP

since I can't pierce the firewall and won't subscribe,

First, and foremost, I think the story is a plant. There's been a lot of stories, especially with respect to Hunter Biden, being attributed to people "associated with the case", "familiar with the case" who really have no direct knowledge and are really just putting talking points out for the RWNM and RWNJ to eat up space on their favorite news sites. I'm not buying their sourcing.

Next, there just seems something odd about the USA office in DE contemplating prior drug use as a viable defense against these charges? They're saying they're investigating for tax fraud and false statements with respect to a gun purchase. I can maybe (and that's a big maybe) it might be a factor in the alleged gun purchase, but how would that be a factor in his tax dealings. I don't see this as a defense, but something that could result in more charges if they found he lied to IRS.

I've been around enough and understand the rules regarding limits on posting stories so these thoughts are solely based on what was posted, with no offense to OP.

[question everything]

13. So you don't have problems with these posts

https://democraticunderground.com/10142978168

https://democraticunderground.com/1017773156

https://democraticunderground.com/100217231058

Are the WaPO, ABC, MSNBC are acceptable but the WSJ is not?

One would hope that in a knowledgeable site the content, not the source would matter but then, too many have rely on wishes rather than information. Which is fine for personal life but bad for winning elections.

And BTW, the news stories of the WSJ are superb but this is beside the point..

[PRETZEL]

14. I generally have no issues with those sources,

but it seems that most of the stories coming out pointing to the WaPo article is coming from Devlin Barrett,

I'm linking to a thread by Emptywheel (and as aside, I find her very credible) and her take on Mr. Barrett's sourcing.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1578110545479274496.html

There have been many questions regarding the reporting of people like Judy Miller or Maggie Haberman over the years. Why should he be viewed upon any differently.

That's all I'm saying

[crickets]

15. +1

[maxsolomon]

12. OMG he lied about a GUN?

you'd think that would make him a hero to Cons.